This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
We are a part of the project working at Davidson College to enhance the level of psychology topics relative to Cognitive Psychology. We have been assigned to this page and here is our strategy for enhancing the quality of this article:
We are going to begin by creating an short introduction to the article as an overview of the entire article. We are going to completely start over considering the body of the article and expand on the topic using many verifiable sources from various psychology journals, studies, and articles. We are currently researching and wish to create an article that is very clear, easy to read, and easy to follow based upon our research. We are going to create at least 4 subheadings after the introduction and general overview of the DRM Paradigm.
While the article is well-sourced, it requires a thorough copyedit to meet GA standards.
There are only 3 wikilinks in the text...this is insufficient. Please add more wikilinks.
Rather than using "Fabiani et. al (2000) " you should described the study in a sentence..."A study at X university, by X researchers conducted in X year found...X"
The tone is a bit off in places...reading like an essay. For example "The question of why the DRM paradigm still remains. " should be something like "The cause of the DRM paradigm is not fully understood and is the subject of ongoing psychological studies."
Where possible, terms should be defined where they are used...not after as in "The above explanation is known as activation monitoring theory."
There are some grammer errors such as "The wanted to determine the..."...should be "They wanted to determine the..."
Should the lead section contain more (or different) information? I feel like it does a good job of explaining the basics of the paradigm and what it can show, and gives a taster for what is to come, but the banner at the top of the page suggests it lacks something. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daronsen (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you that a look at WP:LEAD, it's not necessarily about content but style. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead section has been changed for almost a week now, and there have been no comments, so I will remove the tag, but please comment if you think it still needs work Daronsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)